On 19/02/07, Jirka Kosek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's your perception. My perception is that there are serious > requirements coming at least from from DocBook, TEI and XHTML which > can't be addressed with current standards for schema association. This > argument was silently ignored by people who were against this proposal, > they haven't offered any solution to the problem of having several > schemas for a single namespace.
Do we have any information why such an association was either rejected or not thought of in the initial ISO working group? (I can't see such a group not having thought of it) >From memory I recall that such validation was determined to be application based, not document based? I may be wrong. > So there are several possible ways to proceed: > > 1. Simply ignore requirements coming from real-life problems > > 2. Extend NVDL to cover those requirements (but this would be quite big > change to NVDL, which I do not think happen at least in a short term). > To me it seems that if we do not want to hide our heads in sand (1.), we > should do 3. and in a long term we can try to make 2. happen. I agree that if some users want it, NVDL is the right place and that those users should petition for that change. Short term, go ahead and use a PI. If the interested groups agree on a PI name so much the better. That way no one is affected other than those interested in such an embedded solution. regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
